STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To have leave to appeal the judgment dated 17.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.15/2011, this application is preferred.

(2.) By the judgment impugned, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent from the charge pertaining to commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 I.P.C. The learned trial court after examining entire evidence available on record, arrived at the conclusion that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are not forming complete chain indicating only one conclusion about the involvement of accused in the crime in-question.

(3.) While pressing this application, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court erred while not adequately appreciating the evidence adduced by PW-4 Shri Ladhu Ram, who in quite definite terms stated that he saw Jagdish putting out dead-body of Ram Niwas from his house. We have examined the statement made by Shri Ladhu Ram (PW-4). True it is, Shri Ladhu Ram stated the fact as pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor but merely on that count conviction for a serious offence punishable under Sec. 302 I.P.C. could have not been recorded. Suffice to mention that the case of accused in defence was that deceased Ram Niwas came to his house and made an effort to commit rape with his wife and on being pushed, he fell down. The prosecution witness Dr. Manoj Kumar Arya stated that the deceased was having three injuries and the injuries no.1 & 2 were not sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. So far as injury no.3 is concerned, that may be received on falling down of a person. Be that as it may, the instant one is a case where the circumstances are apparently not adequate to establish the respondent guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 I.P.C. The only circumstance about putting down body of the deceased from the house is not at all sufficient to record conviction as desired.